Home » Planning & Design » Currently Reading:

More on Cities, Suburbs and Demographics

May 24, 2011 Planning & Design 14 Comments

 

ABOVE: Mexico Rd in St. Peters Missouri. Pedestrians must climb the berm or walk in the auto drives to reach the buildings behind the parking lots

Yesterday I posted my reaction to a CBS News story on cities.  I said; “Middle class couples with school age children are still locating in new homes in edge cities but once the youngest starts college the parents seek out interesting and walkable areas. Those who can afford private schools aren’t waiting, they are living where they want while junior is still in school.” I reader asked for my source, which I didn’t have.  Today I have sources to look at the emerging trends:

In a historic first, many young, prosperous Americans are moving from the suburbs to the city. The flip side: The communities ringing big urban areas now have the largest poor population in the country, the [Brookings] report shows. The suburban poor rose 25% over the past decade, almost five times faster than in the cities. Suburbs are developing many of the same problems that are usually associated with cities – poverty, housing problems, crime. They are also accumulating a disproportionate number of elderly people. (WSJ: Bright Flight: Affluent Leaving Suburbs, Moving to Cities, May 2010)

In St. Louis we may think the city continued losing population, business as usual right?  But not so fast, lower income blacks are leaving cities and more affluent whites are moving into cities.

Suburbs still tilt white. But, for the first time, a majority of all racial and ethnic groups in large metro areas live outside the city. Suburban Asians and Hispanics already had topped 50 percent in 2000, and blacks joined them by 2008, rising from 43 percent in those eight years.

Suburbs are home to the vast majority of baby boomers age 55 to 64, a fast-growing group that will strain social services after the first wave of boomers turns 65 next year. (HuffPost: Suburbs Losing Young Whites To Cities, Brookings Institution Finds, May 2010)

Racial shifts are certainly happening:

The decline in major cities’ black populations is “one of the most important trends out of the 2010 Census, and I do think it’s a long-term trend,” says Mike Alexander, research division chief for the Atlanta Regional Commission, a planning agency.

From 2000 to 2010, the city of Atlanta’s black population fell by 29,746 people. During that period, the black population in the broader Atlanta metro area rose by 40%, an addition of 490,982. Those numbers tell Alexander that blacks are relocating in suburbs, not in other cities. “This black migration to the suburbs” mirrors what whites have been doing for decades, he says. (USA Today: Blacks’ exodus reshapes cities, May 2011)

Just like the white flight half a century ago, the blacks leaving cities are the stable middle class and up.  This has huge implications:

The problem with the changing demographics of urban areas is that many of the African-Americans fleeing places like Chicago and Detroit are wealthier and more educated than the ones staying behind. That means that Blacks with more money are taking that cash to less diverse suburbs, and buying homes in white communities. The Black communities left behind in the cities are then more shutoff from the world of money and political power, meaning whole Black neighborhoods have less of a chance of being revitalized. (BET: The Danger of Fleeing to the Suburbs, May 2011)

The Brookings’ State of Metropolitan America report from 2010 is a168 page PDF with a detailed analysis of the changes happening in America’s metro areas.  The report was finished last year so it wasn’t based on 2010 census figures released this year.

The report defined the various types of metropolitan areas listing St. Louis in the “skilled anchors” group:

Skilled Anchors are slow-growing, less diverse metro areas that boast higher-than-average levels of educational attainment. of the 19 nationwide, 17 lie in the northeast and Midwest, including large regions such as boston and philadelphia, and smaller regions such as Akron and Worcester. Many boast significant medical and educational institutions. (p9)

That is St. Louis! In the body of the report Brookings goes into more detail, comparing Skilled Anchor to Industrial areas:

Skilled Anchor and industrial core areas are more similar than distinct. They experienced rapid decentralization amidst only modest growth in the 2000s, and an above-average share of their commuting occurs by car (the highest rate in industrial cores). immigration to these metro areas—with a couple of notable exceptions—is quite low, though most retain significant African American populations as a consequence of their former manufacturing might. They have among the oldest age profiles of the metropolitan types, the result of low in-migration and a significant aging-in-place boomer and senior population. (p164)

So the black exodus isn’t as pronounced in St. Louis as in other regions.

Brookings did offer some suggestions for these regions:

Finally, new demographic realities must be met with new governance arrangements. More than ever, the lines between cities and suburbs—and the long, fruitless history of battles and mistrust between them—must be transcended. cities and suburbs increasingly share challenges like poverty, growing elderly populations, and influxes of new Americans. At the same time, the fiscal crisis has dramatically undermined the capacity of individual jurisdictions to address familiar existing needs, and has compromised their ability to react to new realities. States are facing their own intense fiscal stresses, which will get worse before they get better, and thus they can- not be counted on to support the local government status quo. (p165)

Once again this is a huge fit for the St. Louis region!  None of this is new, for several years now people such as author Christopher B. Leinberger have been writing about these shifts in population:

Perhaps most important, the shift to walkable urban environments will give more people what they seem to want. I doubt the swing toward urban living will ever proceed as far as the swing toward the suburbs did in the 20th century; many people will still prefer the bigger houses and car-based lifestyles of conventional suburbs. But there will almost certainly be more of a balance between walkable and drivable communities—allowing people in most areas a wider variety of choices. (Atlantic Magazine: The Next Slum? March 2008)

– Steve Patterson

 

Currently there are "14 comments" on this Article:

  1. Nano says:

    It’s also important to note there were 4 major components to sprawl

    1 theere was unlimited cheap oil
    2 there was unlimited land in America to build on
    3 homogenous living was the best and most important was to increase home values
    4 the American Dream could only be realized by living in a single family home with a yard in the suburbs. This was force fed to us by home builders and society.

    These principals are collapsing right before our eyes as the new generation is more environmentally conscious and was a walkable area to live in.

     
  2. Nano says:

    It’s also important to note there were 4 major components to sprawl

    1 theere was unlimited cheap oil
    2 there was unlimited land in America to build on
    3 homogenous living was the best and most important was to increase home values
    4 the American Dream could only be realized by living in a single family home with a yard in the suburbs. This was force fed to us by home builders and society.

    These principals are collapsing right before our eyes as the new generation is more environmentally conscious and was a walkable area to live in.

     
    • Eric says:

      The new generation says they are environmentally conscious, but in most cases won’t make significant personal sacrifices for the environment. (Sort of like the attitude to religion a few generations back?) And there is still plenty of land available.

      However, rising gas prices certainly could make it difficult for most people to live in the suburbs. I suspect this will be partly addressed by densification of the suburbs (more condos etc.) as well as by movement to the city.

       
  3. Anonymous says:

    Many good points, but a couple also seem to be missing.  One, while some older people are relocating to more walkable, urban areas, many, if not a larger percentage, are fighting to stay where they are, illustrated by things like the pressure to reduce property taxes for seniors and the increasing number of 80+ drivers.  And two, while the inner ring suburbs are seeing growth in poverty rates, the outer ring suburbs / exurbs, especially here, seem to be continuing the homogenous model.  We still have the doughnut, it’s just gotten bigger as we’ve sprawled out.

     
  4. JZ71 says:

    Many good points, but a couple also seem to be missing.  One, while some older people are relocating to more walkable, urban areas, many, if not a larger percentage, are fighting to stay where they are, illustrated by things like the pressure to reduce property taxes for seniors and the increasing number of 80+ drivers.  And two, while the inner ring suburbs are seeing growth in poverty rates, the outer ring suburbs / exurbs, especially here, seem to be continuing the homogenous model.  We still have the doughnut, it’s just gotten bigger as we’ve sprawled out.

     
  5. Eric says:

    The new generation says they are environmentally conscious, but in most cases won’t make significant personal sacrifices for the environment. (Sort of like the attitude to religion a few generations back?) And there is still plenty of land available.

    However, rising gas prices certainly could make it difficult for most people to live in the suburbs. I suspect this will be partly addressed by densification of the suburbs (more condos etc.) as well as by movement to the city.

     
  6. Anonymous says:

    We have been through the era when oil companies ruled, not that they still don’t, but their grasp is weakening. The nonsense of suburbs without sane urban policies is at at end. In contrast, Stockholm sent main train lines outside the city center and developed suburbs around those train lines, developing walking environments as part of the suburban plan (in the sixties and seventies).
    The shifts in population are immaterial if new realities are considered. Blah, blah, blah, the bottom line the form and shape of St. Louis in not sustainable in the short run, nor the long run. Throwing around statistics doesn’t matter. Who cares who moves where when the current system of crap collapses, and it is on its way, then everyone will be failing about crying about their lost prosperity.
    The oil companies along with their partners in business and government have comprismised city and urban planning over decades, they have succeeded in setting up failure.
    Meanwhile they have made billions.
    An absolute, total rethinking of urban planning and transit is needed, screw the pissy reports of movements in or out.
    A major shift in consciousness and approach needs to occur, now. America has been burdened by oil cartels and their numerous enablers. It appears only utter, complete collapse, on the scale of a category 5 tornado will wake people up.
    But maybe not, welcome to America.

     
  7. gmichaud says:

    We have been through the era when oil companies ruled, not that they still don’t, but their grasp is weakening. The nonsense of suburbs without sane urban policies is at at end. In contrast, Stockholm sent main train lines outside the city center and developed suburbs around those train lines, developing walking environments as part of the suburban plan (in the sixties and seventies).
    The shifts in population are immaterial if new realities are considered. Blah, blah, blah, the bottom line the form and shape of St. Louis in not sustainable in the short run, nor the long run. Throwing around statistics doesn’t matter. Who cares who moves where when the current system of crap collapses, and it is on its way, then everyone will be failing about crying about their lost prosperity.
    The oil companies along with their partners in business and government have comprismised city and urban planning over decades, they have succeeded in setting up failure.
    Meanwhile they have made billions.
    An absolute, total rethinking of urban planning and transit is needed, screw the pissy reports of movements in or out.
    A major shift in consciousness and approach needs to occur, now. America has been burdened by oil cartels and their numerous enablers. It appears only utter, complete collapse, on the scale of a category 5 tornado will wake people up.
    But maybe not, welcome to America.

     
    • JZ71 says:

      How do you explain the embrace of the single-occupant vehicle in developing economies (China, India, Brazil, etc.), given our supposed enlightenment about the evils of “big oil”?  Could it be that most people would rather ride than walk, and most people would rather drive themselves than having to rely on public transportation?

      Urban design ALWAYS mirrors preferences in transportation.  There are no rational reasons for the SOV – they cost more, require ongoing maintenance and need multiple places to be parked, yet the vast majority of us continue to choose them as our primary means of getting around.  The irrational reason is pretty easy to explain – it’s simply the most comfortable and convenient way to travel locally.  Until public transit can figure out how to compete in both comfort and travel times, our choice of the SOV will continue to be reflected in our built environment.

       
      • Chris says:

        It shows the power of American culture, for better or for worse.  For millenia civilizations have adopted the ways of more powerful civilizations.  For many people in the world, owning a car is a status symbol.

         
      • samizdat says:

        “How do you explain the embrace of the single-occupant vehicle in
        developing economies (China, India, Brazil, etc.), given our supposed
        enlightenment about the evils of “big oil”?” Marketing/PR(opaganda), Jim, pretty simple. The same type of Marketing/PR(opaganda) which has caused the enormous rise in cigarette smoking in South Asia, China, and elsewhere in that region. As markets for both products have remained static or declined (relative to population growth) in Europe and N. America, the manufacturers have simply moved on to newer markets, where the potential for growth and greater profit from higher margin luxury vehicles is increasing with the transfer of corporate supranational and individual wealth to those regions. Oh, to be sure, aspirational desires and status-seeking do contribute to the overall effect of increased auto ownership, but I contend that even that trend is a synthetic creation of the Marketing/PR(opaganda) industries. Marketing/(PR(opaganda) isn’t some touchy-feely, heartwarming industry where they seek to inform the public about the supposed benefits of a particular product. It is a scourge on human thought, designed to manipulate and confuse the viewer or listener. Modern M/PR, in addition to using all of the older tricks, has in the last twenty years or so taken to utilizing the research and direct assistance of psychiatric and psychological professionals to further hone and configure the various methods by which they commit to lying to the public. Desire of any product or service in our modern era, all the way back to the Gilded Age, has been most often a direct result of the manipulation of the human psyche for the benefit of  profit-seeking enterprise. Don’t even get me started on how pols and the government have utilized the M/PR to their own ends. You don’t even know how much of your own mind is basically “owned” by the Marketing/PR industry. You, and most everyone else, for that matter, can fall prey to the various “triggers” developed over the last century by this industry, and you wouldn’t even be consciously aware of it.

         
  8. Anonymous says:

    How do you explain the embrace of the single-occupant vehicle in developing economies (China, India, Brazil, etc.), given our supposed enlightenment about the evils of “big oil”?  Could it be that most people would rather ride than walk, and most people would rather drive themselves than having to rely on public transportation?

    Urban design ALWAYS mirrors preferences in transportation.  There are no rational reasons for the SOV - they cost more, require ongoing maintenance and need multiple places to be parked, yet the vast majority of us continue to choose them as our primary means of getting around.  The irrational reason is pretty easy to explain – it’s simply the most comfortable and convenient way to travel locally.  Until public transit can figure out how to compete in both comfort and travel times, our choice of the SOV will continue to be reflected in our built environment.

     
  9. Chris says:

    It shows the power of American culture, for better or for worse.  For millenia civilizations have adopted the ways of more powerful civilizations.  For many people in the world, owning a car is a status symbol.

     
  10. samizdat says:

    “How do you explain the embrace of the single-occupant vehicle in
    developing economies (China, India, Brazil, etc.), given our supposed
    enlightenment about the evils of “big oil”?” Marketing/PR(opaganda), Jim, pretty simple. The same type of Marketing/PR(opaganda) which has caused the enormous rise in cigarette smoking in South Asia, China, and elsewhere in that region. As markets for both products have remained static or declined (relative to population growth) in Europe and N. America, the manufacturers have simply moved on to newer markets, where the potential for growth and greater profit from higher margin luxury vehicles is increasing with the transfer of corporate supranational and individual wealth to those regions. Oh, to be sure, aspirational desires and status-seeking do contribute to the overall effect of increased auto ownership, but I contend that even that trend is a synthetic creation of the Marketing/PR(opaganda) industries. Marketing/(PR(opaganda) isn’t some touchy-feely, heartwarming industry where they seek to inform the public about the supposed benefits of a particular product. It is a scourge on human thought, designed to manipulate and confuse the viewer or listener. Modern M/PR, in addition to using all of the older tricks, has in the last twenty years or so taken to utilizing the research and direct assistance of psychiatric and psychological professionals to further hone and configure the various methods by which they commit to lying to the public. Desire of any product or service in our modern era, all the way back to the Gilded Age, has been most often a direct result of the manipulation of the human psyche for the benefit of  profit-seeking enterprise. Don’t even get me started on how pols and the government have utilized the M/PR to their own ends. You don’t even know how much of your own mind is basically “owned” by the Marketing/PR industry. You, and most everyone else, for that matter, can fall prey to the various “triggers” developed over the last century by this industry, and you wouldn’t even be consciously aware of it.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe